Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the significant diversity in Bengali, the predominant and official language of Bangladesh, primarily resulting from language contact, a prevailing concept in sociolinguistics. This paper scrutinises the historical influence of language contact on the evolution and development of Bengali from a sociolinguistic standpoint. Specifically, it traces the chronology of contact languages and the periodization of Bengali in Bangladesh. The author presents an overview of the current state of language contact in Bangladesh, considering influences from online media, virtual communication, and globalisation. The paper also critiques the limitations present in the existing literature on Bengali’s periodization. It further elucidates the intricate connection between language contact and the changes in the Bengali language. The study utilises a qualitative method, drawing from diverse sources such as academic articles, books, newspapers, public records, statistics, historical documents, and biographies, to deduce initial findings about the causes and impacts of contact languages in Bangladesh. One central theme is the examination of significant changes in Bengali resulting from contact languages. The paper seeks to investigate the sociolinguistic chronological history of contact languages in Bangladesh. Following an interpretivist paradigm, it views linguistic contact as a socially constructed reality, embodying multiple perspectives within Bangladesh. Besides underscoring the influence of virtual language contact on digital platforms in Bangladesh, the findings emphasise the crucial role of contact languages in the development and maturation of the Bengali language.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".